Leach v. Superior Court
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | PUGLIA |
| Citation | 169 Cal.Rptr. 42,111 Cal.App.3d 902 |
| Parties | Stanley S. LEACH et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY, Respondent, Jesse MARKUM et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 19929. |
| Decision Date | 07 November 1980 |
Page 42
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY, Respondent,
Jesse MARKUM et al., Real Parties in Interest.
As Modified Nov. 21, 1980.
[111 Cal.App.3d 903] Law Offices of Harrison Smith, Shasta, D. D. Hughmanick, James L. Stoekler, John
Page 43
R. Mullen and Daniel McLoughlin, San Francisco, for petitioners.No appearance for respondent.
Lee A. Lopez, Redding, for real parties in interest.
PUGLIA, Presiding Justice.
Petitioners are defendants in a quiet title action pending in the respondent superior court. By this application for a writ of mandate, they seek review of the trial court's order denying their motion[111 Cal.App.3d 904] to compel responses to interrogatories and for sanctions. Real parties in interest are plaintiffs in the trial court action. For ease of identification, the parties to this proceeding will be referred to hereinafter by their designations in the trial court.
On May 1, 1980, the underlying action was set for trial in superior court October 2, 1980. The pretrial conference order provides that discovery will remain open until 30 days prior to trial.
On June 3, 1980, within the time limits set by the pretrial order, defendants served plaintiffs with interrogatories. Plaintiffs did not answer or object to the interrogatories within the time permitted by statute (Code Civ.Proc., § 2030, subd. (a)), nor did they seek or receive an extension of time within which to respond. After expiration of the time for answers or objections, defendants' counsel advised counsel for plaintiffs by letter dated July 9, 1980, that a motion to compel answers would be filed in the event that none were received within five days thereafter. Plaintiffs again failed to respond and defendants filed their motion to compel answers and for sanctions. The declaration in support of the motion incorporates the letter of July 9, 1980. No opposition to the motion was filed by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' counsel appeared at the hearing and opposed the motion. His argument in opposition was based solely on defendants' asserted failure to comply with rule 222.1, California Rules of Court, which provides:
"A motion to compel answers or further answers to interrogatories or requests for admissions or to protect the responding party shall include a declaration stating facts to show that prior to the filing thereof counsel for the moving party made a reasonable attempt to resolve objections and disputed issues with opposing counsel but the attempt was unsuccessful. If the court finds that there was no good reason for the refusal or failure to resolve the matter, it may order any persons at fault to pay to the moving party the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion including reasonable attorney's fees."
At the hearing plaintiffs' counsel pointed out to the court that the July...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinaiko v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, B187258.
...responses (§§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c)) or for misuse of discovery (§ 2023.040).15 (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42 ["meet-and-confer" requirement of former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 222.1 (now embodied in § 2030.300, subd. (b)) d......
-
Maldonado v. Superior Court
...with a statute, it is invalid. (In re Robin M. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337, 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352, 579 P.2d 1; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42.) [162 Cal.App.3d 1266] A fortiori, similar inconsistency with a constitutional provision would be likewise Petit......
-
Palma v. U. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.
...would follow issuance of an alternative writ is unnecessary to disposition of the petition. (See, e.g., Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42; Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 163 Cal.Rptr. 39; Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99......
-
Brown v. Superior Court, B017356
...149 Cal.Rptr. 499; Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 216-217, 23 Cal.Rptr. 393, 373 P.2d 457; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42; Cal.Civil Discovery Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1975) § 8.32, pp. 352-353.) We see no basis for treating the privilege ......
-
Sinaiko v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, B187258.
...responses (§§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c)) or for misuse of discovery (§ 2023.040).15 (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42 ["meet-and-confer" requirement of former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 222.1 (now embodied in § 2030.300, subd. (b)) d......
-
Maldonado v. Superior Court
...with a statute, it is invalid. (In re Robin M. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337, 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352, 579 P.2d 1; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42.) [162 Cal.App.3d 1266] A fortiori, similar inconsistency with a constitutional provision would be likewise Petit......
-
Palma v. U. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.
...would follow issuance of an alternative writ is unnecessary to disposition of the petition. (See, e.g., Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42; Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 163 Cal.Rptr. 39; Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99......
-
Brown v. Superior Court, B017356
...149 Cal.Rptr. 499; Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 216-217, 23 Cal.Rptr. 393, 373 P.2d 457; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42; Cal.Civil Discovery Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1975) § 8.32, pp. 352-353.) We see no basis for treating the privilege ......